I don't think he's asking you a question, will. I think he's just calling you out on what he believes is your dishonesty.


I'm just watching this thread to see how long before we pull the plug.

I don't think I'm being dishonest. I'm simply working my way through this.
While the thread is clearly heated, I don't recall anyone breaking rules. I'm even trying to get it back on topic by tying the big mess back into the OP (from whence it came). If it were closed, I would hope it were closed for a reason other than "I completely disagree with Willravel".

Picking out statements which can be fallacious and assuming they're fallacious because it allows you to avoid addressing the issues in the statement doesn't do you any good, will. None of what he said constitutes either of the fallacies you've listed. He posted facts and substance which in his opinion prove his point, based on his years of experience in the field of constitutional law. It doesn't automatically make him right, but it would certainly grant him what they call "expert authority" on the material in a court (since we're talking about law here, after all).

You've posted your opinions, which, as far as anyone reading this thread can tell, are either baseless or based on shoddy or incomplete research and he felt that that style of response to his well-researched and reasoned posts was condescending.

You're quick to call out others for not being civil in heated discussions, but I'd urge you to try to read your posts in the shoes of someone else. They can sound pretty nasty sometimes.

More intellecual dishonesty.

More intellecual dishonesty.

You know that a thread isn't closed for disagreements. It's closed because another user is being attacked or flamed. It's closed because the discussion no longer relates to the OP in any manner shape or form. If you believe it's heated, that's because the heat is directed at you. I don't really care at all about this topic. I don't care if Hillary is offered this spot as part of a deal to quit campaigning. I also don't care if you are being intellectually dishonest at this point. You've had ample time to address my questions. You've chosen NOT to address them.

But my question has been simple, explain how you understand the seperation of power and the checks and balances provided by the United States Constitution. I've been asking this since it seems that the fundamental foundation of this discussion has been the point of your arguments where you've said they were fucking stupid. You've even stated that the Constitutional provisions outlines "flies in the very face of checks and balances."

Post #91
Post #92
END OF POST #92
Post #97I've even given you a couple places for you to read in the thread as to learning aids to the seperation of powers and checks and balances in post #39 Entire US Constitution Articles I-III, post #41 soclialstudieshelp.com and post #84 My point of placing them in was to make sure that we are talking from the same starting point. You've clearly demonstrated that it was different. You offered "If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond."

You are welcome to use those to explain how you believe and understand the seperation of power and checks and balances, and then compare them to your belief.

After that bonus questions are:

Post #16
post #50
Post #73
Post #80

Not relevant? Are you kidding me?! You think that it's not relevant because it completely refutes your argument about Thomas. I guess I'll have to lead you by the nose:

Scalia is acknowledged as one of the most, if not the most, conservative justice.
Thomas votes with Scalia 94% of the time. That means they agree.
That makes Thomas a conservative 94% of the time.
If he were a swing vote, he would dissent with Scalia much more often. Hell, I'd give you a pass on just about any other justice on the court, but you made the fatal error of picking the one justice that, to his critics anyway, seems incapable of independent thought and calling him a "swing" vote. I've heard the analogy that if Scalia burbs, Thomas says "excuse me". You have the hard and fast numbers in front of you, and I see you trying to twist out of them or turn them in your favor, but let me tell you that if you continue to call Thomas a swing vote, not only are you being intellectually dishonest, you're burning up the tremendous amount of goodwill you've built up around here. I'm really coming to the point where I'm going to have to start questioning the validity of anything and everything you say, even when I agree with it, all based on this thread.

Will, you deserve to know this. I got an email last night from a friend who's never been to TFP before that read this thread after I directed him to it. He's a former SCOTUS clerk (and the owner of the ugliest 16' polevault I've ever seen), and he finally asked me what was going on after I pinged him for info all yesterday. He registered just to read this, so I came to work this morning reading the 4 emails he sent me between 11 pm and midnight with quotes from this thread. You've given him a good chuckle.

In all seriousness, if there weren't 4 or 5 posts behind this one that directly refer to this, I'd PM you to edit your post to delete this paragraph. I know that you're not nearly stupid enough to ask this question if you'd thought it through, so I'm just going to chalk it up to the heat of the moment. But, for those reading this in posterity, I meant the traditional conservatism that found in courts. There's no such thing as a neocon judicial philosphy. Anyone who's taken Constitution Law 101 - actually even just sat through the first two weeks and stayed awake - knows that "liberal" and "conservative" have very specific meanings when discussing courts, judges and decisions.

I, too, would like further clarification on what you meant. Especially since you apologized for it in the first sentence, then went back and retracted that apology in the third. I'm starting to wonder if you're just being willfully ignorant of the Constitutional processes that work in this country.

Here's what you should have learned in 7th grade civics:

The leadership of the Executive is chosen by the Electoral College (on the advice of the people).
The leadership of the Legislature is chosen by the Legislature (Speakers, Leaders, Whips, etc.). Until you get to Congress, you'll never be able to vote in any election to select one of these leaders.
The entirity of the Federal judiciary - every single Federal judge everywhere in America including circuit, appellate and SCOTUS - is proposed by the Executive and approved by the Senate. It's not just the leadership, it's the entire branch. So whatever qualification you intended with your "leadership" comment, it has no basis in reality. As I count it, this is the 3rd time I've explained this to you, Will. If you object to the Executive proposing judicial "leadership" (whatever that means) and the Legislature approving it, then you object to the entire system of checks and balances. There is no "grey" area. There is no room for interpretation. It is what is. Please, for both of our sakes, either explain EXACTLY what you mean or give us a real mea culpa on the issue. It's either that or cynthetiq and I are going to start beating you over the head with facts.

loquitur, thanks for your contributions in this thread, and I'm sorry that you got frustrated by the mulishness here. Will, as I see it we're at the point where we're going to test who's more obstinant, you or me. Your posts are going to be easier to concoct because you're pulling facts out of thin air, but you should know that I'm not going to give this up, especially since you're demonstrably wrong on so many things.

Why is it that whenever an older member points to having more experience, in any given matter, the clearasil crowd will always point to "ageism"? Typically, I just give up at that point. There really is no use discussing something with someone that resorts to this infantile copout.

Wrong is wrong, and age has not one damn thing to do with it. Opinions, on the other hand, are often formed over time, with greater gained knowledge and experience. In another 20 years, or so, you'll come to understand that. But, then again, what do I know? It's been 22 years since I was 23 and idealistic. All of that extra experience has just jaded me, and turned me "ageist".

no, Will, it's 27 years of experience practicing and learning law and following the Supreme Court that entitles me to call you out. Unlike you, I don't claim to be a consummate authority on everything, but I do have a fair amount of expertise in this area. I also don't believe in being a partisan hack and mischaracterizing what I read in order to make partisan points. It's not ageism, it's knowledgeability. See, I know that I don't know everything and can't. But I do know what I know and I also am aware of things I don't know. And if I don't know something I'll say so. It's a useful mindset, you might benefit from adopting it.

If you must know, what sent me about your post was the implication that I was lying about the lineups of the justices in the punitive damages cases, when I QUOTED THE LINEUP OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORT. In fact, even if I didn't, but just summarized it - you think I'd lie about something like that? For what? to "win" an argument here? Are you daft? What's more, if you had even the most rudimentary knowledge in this area, which you obviously don't, you would have recognized the syllabus reporter's lingo in that lineup summary. Something like that appears in pretty much every single reported Supreme Court opinion.

Here's a suggestion for you. When you've gone through law school and practiced law long enough to have a sense of how courts work, come back and we can talk about what judges do and why. I don't even insist that you have a Supreme Court argument in your background the way I do (I argued a case there back in 2000). But until then, don't pontificate about the work of the Supreme Court when all you're doing is parrotting partisan bullshit. Don't purport to lecture to me about what judges do and how they act if you haven't a clue what the Supreme Court's work is.

And one other thing - don't suggest that other people are lying unless you have a pretty damn good reason to think that. People who deal with me professionally consistently say that I fight hard but I play fair and am always straight with them. There's very little that pisses me off more than an accusation that I'm not being straight - especially when it comes from someone who in this area is, at most, a spectator.

And that's all I'm going to say about this. I made the mistake of thinking you were discussing stuff here in earnest. I'm not making that mistake again. The last refuge of the dishonest arguer is to accuse the other person of bigotry. Congratulations, you've scraped bottom.

I've found responding to you difficult lately. I decided to take a short hiatus.
Checks and balances is a system built into our governmental system meant to ensure that no one branch has too much power. For example, the Legislative can investigate the Executive and the Executive can veto the Legislative. In this way different branches can police one another.

The intent, imho, is the most important part of checks and balances. No one branch can be allowed to be too powerful.
Let's say that Scalia votes conservative 84% of the time. That'd mean Thomas could vote conservative maybe 79% of the time. What I'm saying is that the proper control shouldn't be Scalia at 84%, but rather a hypothetical 100%. That's all.
Maybe you're forgetting that the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. That was a neo-conservative move. It was not a traditional conservative move and it was not a liberal move. Scalia has also clearly said that the torture of prisoners does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment." That's neo-conservative.

I know everyone is high on righteous indignation, but this thread is turning into "different ways to call Willravel stupid". The last government-specific class I took was in high school, what with having a degree in psych and all. Yes, I plan on getting into a decent school and getting my BA in poli-sci, but I don't have it right now. So maybe, just maybe, people can stop discussing how poorly I've done in classes I never took. I've never taken Constitutional Law. My 7th grade class barely covered history, let along government.
I should have stuck with this:
because it's a lot more clear.

Liq, no one called you a liar. I was looking for an overall bias in the court and you only posted a few cases. I'm sure you understand that in order to determine if there is bias, one would need to look at numerous cases ranging many topics. I said this:
I'm doing a little research on court decisions to try and validate or invalidate my assertion that the court is politically biased. I'm starting with the court under Roberts. From Gonzales v. Oregon through Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, I've tallied (lib/conservative):
Roberts: Liberal: 1111, Conservative: 1111
Stevens: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Scalia: Liberal: 1111, Conservative: 1111
Kennedy: Liberal: 11111, Conservative: 111
Souter: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Thomas: Liberal: 111, Conservative: 11111
Ginsberg: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Bryer: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Alito: Liberal: , Conservative:

The issue I'm now having is
1) Deciding which cases don't include any liberal or conservative issues and
2) determining whether a case was decided based on precedent or bias, which is of paramount importance. I'll ask again:
I'm serious about this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see why.

You're right in pointing out that my education on all this comes from newspapers and other similar media. I'm asking for the tools to educate myself.

Will, I wasn't denying the overall patterns. They are there. What I was saying was that you can't predict the outcome of a particular case based on political views, which is why I picked those two subject matter areas as examples.

Political views and judicial philosophy are two different things. Judges will usually apply the latter even if the result will conflict with the former - the idea being that judges are not in the business of making policy, they're in the business of deciding cases according to the law. That is why I used the eminent domain, medical marijuana and punitive damages cases as examples - in each of those, the supposedly left-wing justices reached the right-wing result while the right-wing justices went the other way. That's because they aren't looking at the result of the case, they're looking at the rule of the case. That is as true of Stephen Breyer (who, by the way, is a great judge) as it is of Nino Scalia (also a giant). They are not politicians.

And if you look at the cases the Sup Ct decides, you'll see most of them are not hot-button constitutional issues. The main work of the Sup Ct is resolution of circuit splits on issues of federal law. (Supreme Court opinions are here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html)

If you want a good left-wing law professors' blog, look at Balkinization. For libertarian law professors, go to Volokh. For conservative, look at Professor Bainbridge.

As far as your chart is concerned, you really need to define what is a liberal result and which is a conservative result. Take the medical marijuana case: which one is the conservative result - that Congress can criminalize raising pot in your own home for your own use? Or that Congress lacks power to do that? In that case, the so-called liberals upheld federal power and the so-called conservatives voted no (though Scalia was in the majority on that one, which surprised me). How about the eminent domain case - which is the liberal position, that it's ok to take someone's home away and give it to Pfizer or not? The "liberals" said it's ok, the "conservatives" said it isn't. Again, it was an issue of the extent of governmental power.

Most of the non-bill-of-rights constitutional issues are questions of "who gets to decide" and NOT "what is the right answer." The NY Times characterizes these consistently on the result of the single case, which is stupidity writ large. In the who gets to decide category, there are disputes of Pres v Congress, Congress v States, agencies v courts, etc etc etc. The issue in those cases is not what the policy is, but who has the power to make the policy in a govt system of separated powers. The results won't be characterized easily as liberal or conservative, but you'll be able to read the cases and see what principles the various justices apply.

That's why the use of political labels as applied to judges is pretty problematic.

No cop-outs on the checks and balances thing, Will. You're still wrong. Political parties do not override the checks and balances. They were contemplated in the system. Political parties in no way impede the ability of the Senate to impeach the President (ask Bill Clinton about that one) nor to remove judges. They also do not impede the ability of the President to veto legislation. This is very, very basic stuff, Will - so basic that I can't believe that you don't already know it. For you to be right, political parties would allow the President to become a tyrant. Say what you will about the current administration, but that's just not true. Host might have you believe that it's coming, but it hasn't happened yet.

Now we come to Scalia and Thomas and your continued attempt to weasel out of hard and fast numbers. I'm not going to let that happen. You've again pulled numbers out of thin air. Even if I grant that your 84% conconction is correct - and it most certainly isn't - 79% conservative by no means makes Thomas a swing vote. That makes him a conservative. Period. Then again, your numbers are completely worthless anyway.

It may have been a "neo-con move" but it was by no means a neo-con decision. There...is...no...such...thing. You may think those were neo-con politically, but that has nothing to do the judicial realities.

No, that's not neo-conservative. That's conservative. He's said that the Eight Amendment does not exend to non-citizens held outside the US. Are you deliberately misusing the term or do you just not understand?

Listen to those here that actually know what they're talking about, Will. For Christ sake, there's a guy in this thread that's actually argued a case in front of the Supreme Court telling you you're wrong!

Someone going to Berkeley Law in the fall should know better. Anyone who's taken the LSAT should know this stuff; I know it was on mine. As far as righteous indignation, this is looking more and more like a situation where you just cannot stand to admit that you are wrong.

If we've gotten this far into the argument and you're trying to validate the fact that there are liberals and conservatives on the bench, then you're wasting your time. There have ALWAYS been liberals and conservatives on the bench. Historians and law professors have made whole careers out of studying movements in each direction on the bench. But that's not what you've been arguing up to now. You've been arguing that they are Republicans and Democrats, and that's a very, very different thing. And one we've all been trying to pound through your head for 2 days.

Will, what Scalia said about torture was not a pronouncement on policy. As a legal matter, if the 8th amendment applies only to the criminal process then it doesn't have application to the war power. That's not neoconservative at all, it's an issue of where one part of the const ends and another begins. If your local jailer tortured convicts or criminal suspects, then the 8th amendment would come into play. But it has nothing to do with collecting intelligence in wartime - that's covered by a whole different set of rules.

There is no such thing as a neo-con view of the constitution. Neoconservatism is a foreign policy approach, not a legal approach. It has to COMPLY with the law, but so does realism, or internationalism, or isolationism, or Wilsonianism or any other ism.
You're just throwing labels around.

If this was a test for 10 points, you'd probably only score 3-4 points. You didn't state anything about the seperation of powers, and your example is a simple example, but no example of what the seperation of powers is or means. You've stated the labels but not what the functions of each are. If you did, you clearly see how there is no ability for ANY branch to be a runaway. Power is limited because the powers are seperated from the very beginning.

In other words, your explaination 3-4pts and all, is also intellectually dishonest.

I didn't know what neo-conservative really meant, I had some clear ideas, but once you mentioned the word, I made sure to double check the meaning. There is not a single article ever written that states the 2000 election decision by the SCOTUS was a neo-conservative move, tactic, decision, anything. In other words, 2000 election SCOTUS neoconservative never were put together in any articles. If what you stated was in fact even a host-ism, there would be at least one post somewhere. But other people have posted what neo-conservative means, and I agree that it has more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy.

Since you are the one bandying about lables and jargon, how is neoconservatism defined and what does it mean to you?

Will, no one is trying to be rigeously indignant. In fact, I don't know where you are getting that his is turning into a "different ways to call Willravel stupid" since no one has to call you that, you've clearly shown your ignorance on the topic and subject of US Constitution and US Government all by yourself. No one has to say a word to that.

But what I will state here is simple:

More intellectual dishonesty.

So you didn't remember it from your history or schooling, but you've clearly been able to read the post of Articles I-III that I posted, you could have easily read the socialstudieshelp.com or even listened to the fabulous , all of which would have given more complete and intuitive answers that you did in explaining how you understand it.

I've seen you rip up the threads here with citations and quotations of very complex issues, yet the most basic foundation of the United States government you're going to blame your lack of grade school, high school, or college level learning. Are you serious?????

That smacks of even more intellectual dishonesty.

The answers were spoon fed to you, and still exist now, but still you insist your position.

You cannot overide the checks and balances, you cannot consolidate the seperation of powers, if you could then the system itself would be broken. The only way that I can see if anything like that could ever happen is if the US Constitution is suspended or revoked. Even then the way I understand it, the very fact that the Constitution has enumerated States versus Federal rights, the US Constitution would still stand in almost every other state. The framers were very mindful to make sure that the power was not centralized so that anyone would have to live under tyranny.

Again, the very assertion means you don't understand what the words of Articles I, II, III say or mean.

What are we disagreeing about, then? That's all I was saying.
That being the case, a running tally probably would probably just be a waste of time.

Still, I have to wonder... couldn't a supreme court justice use favorable precedence to support their political agenda? I know in some cases there can be conflicting precedent, and if something does appear before the supreme court it's often not open and shut. Say Scalia names a conservative precedent and Ginsberg names a liberal precedent, is that political or judicial philosophy?
Can you explain this to Jazz? When I brought this up, he basically called me stupid.
Well put. I think I have a better grasp on this now. It has the appearance of being political to a layman (like, oh I dunno, me), but in actuality it's a lot more like establishing who has jurisdiction or what precedent has jurisdiction.

BTW, I hope you are clear that I never intended to call you a liar.


Jazz, do you think that a Republican Senate would impeach Bush under any circumstances?

Also, I'm not going to Berkeley Law in the fall. I'm going back to get my BA in Political Science. After that, I'll take the LSAT. Then I'd like to get clerical experience in the law field. Then, if my grades, scores, and recommendations are worthy, I'll apply to Boalt (or Berkeley Law, as they call it now). No where in this thread have I resorted to calling someone stupid. You cannot say the same.
Count how many times you've said "intellectually dishonest". And FYI, you're using the term incorrectly. Intellectual dishonesty requires one knowing what one advocates to be false. None of my posts fall into that category.
This is likely a good example of intellectual dishonesty. Hit control + f then type in "stupid".

I want to jump in at the end of debate... but this woman is a disaster and a crook and should not be allowed to hold any public office.

We're disagreeing because you insist on calling these political when they're judicial. The two have nothing to do with each other, as I've tried to tell you over and over.

Not only could they, but they do, especially in high-profile cases. I don't pretend to know nearly as much about the court as loquitur, but I know enough that they use whatever precedent is handy to explain their views on any single issue. That's the way courts work.

I said no such thing. I did not address your chart or any of the information within it at all. Will, my frustration stems from you not admitting that you are wrong on so many issues here, especially when confronted with people who do actually know what they're talking about.

ANY circumstances? Sure. If he killed someone in a duel. If he raped his mother. If he went completely running-around-naked-on-Pennsylvania Avenue crazy. Johnson (the first) was impeached by his own party. Just because they're in his party doesn't mean that they do or don't agree with him. They just think that he hasn't done something suitably agregious to be impeached.

And if George W. Bush were a Democrat but still committed the same acts and came to the same decisions, you feel that the Republican Congress come to the same decision?

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts...."

Maybe? Who knows? That's not the world we live in. The current Senate doesn't think that he did enough wrong to warrant impeachment. End of story. Do I disagree? Yes, for what it's worth.

Let me herd you back to reality AGAIN.

The nice thing about this hypothetical is that we can look back to get historical context (Bill Clinton's impeachment in the House and near impeachment in the Senate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...perjury_charge

Not only are you being intellectually dishonest Will in responding to my statements, your "I didn't have the benefit of learning civics...." is one of the points you are being intellectually dishonest. I guess they taught Biodiesel creation/usage, fuel efficiency and chipping engines in your school, since you do seem proficient in that to some degree. :rolleyes:

I've outlined them quite well, save putting a 1M candlepower spotlight on it. I really don't think anyone deserves to be publicly humiliated but if you want to continue the charade I'll be happy to point them out.

See it seems this is the closest we will get to seeing you make an admission you have no idea as to what the Articles I-III state as to the separation of power and checks and balances.
Yes they do. I'll keep saying it each and every time you keep doing it. Let's make sure we are defining the word correctly.

You are stating the wikipedia version of intellectual dishonesty and that's fine. Using your definition, it still applies because you cannot state on one hand that you understand the separation of powers and checks and balances and then continue to make incorrect statements as to how they work or situations should be applied. Either way one of the statements you are making is intellectually dishonest. If not, then I'm giving you too much credit since the only next logical conclusion drawn is that you truly do not know what you are talking about and are ignorant of the subject being discussed and cannot admit that you do not know or understand the separation of powers and checks and balances as stated in Articles I-III of the United States Constitution.

I'm using John T. Reed's Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics. I will list just the ones that you have used and have applied directly to this discussion:

You've clearly stated that you were going back to school to be a lawyer, not maybe go to law school, but be a lawyer. You've stated the illustrious profession of public defender on many occasion and then moving on to private practice because the pay is high. Delusion? Daydream? Pipe dream? What? Or is it more intellectual dishonesty, your definition, or even self-deception? Or is it more like that personal situtation I have found myself in we've discussed in PMs which I've asked your assistance; the one you helped with kind words and links to many resources?

You've not recanted or even restated that position. You've even started another thread that demonstrates very clearly that you still do not understand the separation of power and the checks and balances that Articles I-II of the United States Constitution clearly define.

I'm not taking the bait on the changing of the subject with the Bush as a democrat scenario because it has no relevance to the discussion at hand which is: you stated that the method of selecting a Supreme Court Judge is stupid, and flies in the very face of checks and balances as the method that is currently used. You are still stating political when they're judicial.

The posit of the Bush scenario shows you still don't understand the foundation of the discussion of separation of powers and the checks and balances stated in the US Constitution. If you are seriously making this a What If? It may be a discussion, but it's simple and one dimensional since it doesn't matter as to what the partisan politics, they have some bearing maybe, but not all bearing. That's about as far as that discussion can go.

Back to selecting Justices post#13, how is it stupid? post#15 How is it that they are representing partisan politics?

I've had plenty of history classes, but the only government-specific class I ever took was one semester my senior year in high school.
Loq made a compelling argument.
This is just a list of logical fallacies. It's also, ironically, a massive red herring.
I never said "maybe", Cynth. Boalt Hall is one of the most elite law schools in the US. I'm sure Loq can attest to it's reputation. Maybe even Jazz. I'm a damn good student, but I can't say with any level of certainty that I'll get in. I'll sure as hell try, but sometimes one's best efforts aren't enough.

If I don't get into Boalt, I'll have to reevaluate my goals. Will I try for Stanford, or will I have to settle on a less elite school? I honestly don't know. Fortunately, this is a few years down the line, so I have time to figure this out. I might apply to Stanford, Boalt, and my alma mater Santa Clara, just to give myself the options. But this is getting way off subject, and I've shared more than enough about me personally.

You've clarified it quite well, you aren't interested in debating this subject based on the reality of the US Constitution Articles I-III.

You clearly don't want to discuss the actual points outlined for you that actually relate to the OP.

I find it ironic that the person who's explicitely stated that the Constitutional system of checks and balances is broken doesn't understand how it works. For the record. And that's "ironic" used correctly, not in the Alanis Morrisette way.

So, who exactly is the leadership of the Judicial branch that is selected by the legislature when every Federal judge is selected in the same way? Who are these "unbiased" judges that you propose we have and how are they "unbiased" when all the sitting SCOTUS justices are? Why is Hillary a bad selection and William Howard Taft wasn't?

I don't find it ironic at all that someone as brilliant as you is still arguing a point I conceded days ago. (Post 91, back on Thursday).
The executive and legislative choosing the leadership of the judicial branch IS checks and balances. How many times must I concede this point before people pay attention?

You've missed the point AGAIN. I read what you wrote, left-handed apology (for lack of a better term) that it was. I'm focused on the "good idea" aspect of your comments, specific the fact that you think that it's not a good idea.

You've admitted that checks and balances do exists. And for that I thank you. But that is a minor part of the whole. Why do you insist that the way federal judges are chosen is a bad idea? Please, there is an audience lurking in this thread waiting to hear you expound on your rationale. We have none up to this point. This one point goes all the way back to Post #2. It's the premise for me posting in this thread to begin with.

Explain, please.

Hilary need to go away entirely
 

Hilary has shown throughout this campaign why most people do not trust her. Her personal ambitions have driven her to lie about numerous facts and have shown her to change her mind to interpret facts to suit her own cause. This is certainly not what we need for the supreme court. A justice should be scholarly, have judicial experience at the district and local level and needs to be as objective as humanly possible in applying the constitution to the facts in the case. Hillary has none of the above qualities. Simply being smart is not enough. She has made agreements, i.e. Florida and Michigan DNC rules, and signed off on them only to make a 180 degree turn when it no longer suited her. She has repeatedly insisted she is ahead in the popular vote when in fact she is not. (She is not counting causcus states and is counting Michigan when Obama was not on the ballot. Bosnia is laughable in that she claimed three seperate times to have been under fire!!.

No, there is no way this lady deserves to be on the court, in the diplomatic service or vice president. Without her last name being Clinton, she would not have even been a senator and never would have run for president.

The obvious inferrence I can make from the above is that you would never have wanted Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis or Felix Frankfurther on the court. Is that the case?

Thurgood Marshall argued and won Brown v. Board of Education. He had possibly one of the most distinguished law careers in American history. Before serving on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall was appointed to and served on United States Court of Appeals. He was a judge at the federal level. While he was a judge at the federal level, he wrote 112 opinions on the court (none of which were overturned).

In contrast, Hillary Clinton served a minor role in the Watergate scandal and authored some works on children's rights, never arguing a major case. She only became an influential attorney because of her marriage and various charity work. Her Senate race was against a weak opponent in an overwhelmingly democratic state. She has never had any judicial experience.

I stand corrected, Will.

See how easy that was?

One could also argue that Earl Warren's service as California Attorney General was judicial experience of a kind (though the supporting of the internment of Japanese Americans is probably one of the most deeply shameful moments in the history of the US).

And Louis Brandeis, of course, had a stellar litigation career.

Felix Frankfurter (with relish on a sesame seed bun) I might give you, though his law career was also much more notable than Clinton's.

I think there is a question you should ask yourself: could Hillary Clinton be the next Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis or Felix Frankfurther? To be honest, I kinda doubt it.

Will, basically you pointed out that all these guys were lawyers - just like Hillary. The thing is I have the luxury of knowing a bit about Clinton's litigation career in the 80's seeing as how much insurance business I write in Arkansas (I think it's about $6M in premium, but I didn't look it up. May be more, may be less). And she was/is a hell of a litigator. In the late 80's she took a $1M+ settlement off of one of an account I write. I know that because my client made a point of telling me. I drive by her old law firm on the way to their office from the airport. And that means that she has exactly the same qualifications as Brandeis and Frankfurther - if not more because she's been involved in the actual crafting of legislation.

Have no doubts - whatever you think of her personally she is an incredibly bright lady. That said, could she be the next Marshall et al? Given the nature of this thread thus far, I have no choice but to say "sure, anything's possible!" And lucky for me, I actually believe it.

It's also possible that I'll be president some day. What's reasonable? Would it be reasonable to believe Hillary (on the off change she accepted a nomination, which is something that probably should be discussed) would—not could—be a justice on par with the aforementioned justices?

Hillary is certainly qualified...she has a strong academic law background, a strong litigation background in Ark, a strong national legal advocacy background with Childrens Defense Fund and as a Carter-appointed board member of the Legal Services Corp, and a strong federal legislative background.

In response to mortgage007...
I think its a bit disingenuous to suggest that one's demeanor during a hard fought political campaign would be the same if she were to serve on the Court.

What I dont think she has....is the interest in a judicial position.

For the most part, a USSC justice (particularly the most juinor) is a very low key position and would not provide the opportunity to focus on advocating her particular areas of interest - children/family issues, health care.

The circle of life of this thread is complete. From post #2 we've been off the rails (entertainingly so in my book), and here's our derailer finally trying to put it back on track.

Clinton has already demonstrated that she has a talented legal mind. How talented? Well, I'm certainly not qualified to answer that question. I can't even conceive of a ratings scale that would allow an observer to compare such things, let alone actually apply one.

dc, I disagree that she wouldn't be interested. I think she is, namely for the reason that it allows her to stay in power for exactly as long as she wishes. Granted she would be in the third of the three branches (among equals, of course), but the thing about the Court is that the "power structure" there is relatively flat. No one justice is any more important than another, and the Chief's job is really no different than the most junior member's.

Finally - and I hope for the final time - are we ever going to get to discuss why the system of checks and balances is broken or not?

One comment on checks and balances...which I firmly believe is at the beadrock of our governmental system.

The process for selecting federal judges has served us well.....the only change I might be open to considering is lifetime appointments (although the Constitution does not say lifetime...it says as long as they demonstrate good behavior).

I would be open to hearings on a proposed Constitutional amendment that would not change the judicial appointment process, but would term limit judges...perhaps 12-15 years, to extend over several administrations.

Norm Ornstein makes an interesting case.

I dont know that I would support it, but I think its worthy of discussion in Congress.

Hillary wants a political platform. As Loq demonstrated, the Supreme Court really isn't a political platform. If she continues on as she has, she will likely go back to being a Senator.

Or she'll make a movie about something and win an Oscar.

Will, you're confusing "politics" and "power", but that's an easy mistake to make. They're similar but mutually exclusive. SCOTUS is the ultimate "decider" - and the more you think about that statement, the more you'll realize how multilayered it is. And the thing about SCOTUS - without the reforms dc proposed (which I like, BTW) - is that it's forever. It is the culmination of a career, justices don't work that hard, and it is the pinacle of what a lawyer is supposed to aspire to be. Unless you're loquitur, who's probably hoping that Larry Flynt needs help again in the future. :)

The pay sucks ($208k/Associate Justices and $217/Chief Justice), at least in terms of what a top law firm partner would make.

And that $20 million debt is out there.

Politics and power can be mutually exclusive, but they are not always and certainly are not in Hillary. "Political power" is both, and it's the perfect description for Hillary Clinton's ambitions.

:lol: A very good point. I'm sure Hillary could give speeches for $200k a pop for a few years and make up for her massive debt. She'd be wise to write a book or make a movie (as I mentioned above). Al Gore has done quite well since 2000.

That's a pay raise from the $169,300 she's making now. I doubt that the debt would sway her one way or the other. It's not like Bill isn't earning or that her speaking fee wouldn't quadruple if she went to the bench.

And Will, politics and power are mutually exclusive. That's why "political" modifies "power" in your example.

But if she stays in the Senate, she can funnel money raised for her next re-election campaign (or a 2010 campaign for NY governor, which I still think is a possibility).

dc, I really don't think that the Clintons think much about debt when it comes to this kind of thing. It certainly wasn't one of Bill's when he left office.

oh... 2010 NY governor.... hmmmm. I don't know what to think about that. Again, I didn't want her as a senator but she's been less than liberal in my opinion.

I was all excited about Spitzer initially until he got all I'm King You subjects do as I say.... and was happy to see him torn down.

of course now what a scandal that would be... Hillary and a #9 I don't know if that's even sexy or not.

At long last...the Hillary-Rudy face off...2010 in NY!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129399?tid=relatedcl

Maybe you can elaborate on "power"? It's a bit vague (thus the necessity of the qualifier). Monetary, political, economic, social?

That is an interesting roadmap being discussed and an interesting matchup to compete against.

Sure. I guess my example wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

The kind of power we're discussing means the ability to change the courses of lives and the course of the country. I suppose that it would include your "political power" example but also encompass aspects of monetary and social power.

The Senate is a small pool of legislators that decide lots of things that affect the common man. I'll immediately conceed that SCOTUS has less ability to resolve policy issues (or really have any affect on them at all, except in the grossest terms) but they do appear in the spotlight and have the ultimate authority on legality (in practice anyway, so I'm not counting amendments). I think the fact that this would be a lifetime appointment might hold some interest for Hillary since I personally think that she's never been a huge fan of campaigning (it's seemed obvious to me since the 1992 "60 Minutes" interview).

Dc, if you're right and her personal economics factor into this more than I give credence to, a SCOTUS seat would increase her speaking fee by quite a bit.

I may be wrong, but I think most SCOTUS justices donate any speaking fees to charity to avoid any perception of influence peddling, although its not required by any rules of the Court.

Scalia is the only one that I am aware of that keeps any fees he receives...he doesnt really give a shit about public perceptions.

I can understand why some would, but I have to agree with Scalia on this one. If people want to pay you to speak, you should be able to keep the money. I don't think that Scalia would let a speaking fee influence him. Say what you will about him, but he is remarkably consistent.

I think SCOTUS justices should be held to the same standard as other federal judges covered by the Official Code of Conduct for United States Judges....they, and Appeals Court judges, are evidently exempt.

I dont suggest that it affects Scalia's decisions....but it does create a public perception or potential "appearance of impropriety" which the code strongly discourages.

I might be tempted to move to NY to vote in that election :p